Motor Accident | Insurer Must Prove Tanker Was Carrying Hazardous Goods Before Alleging Want Of Licence Endorsement: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that an insurer cannot avoid liability under a motor accident award by pointing to the absence of an endorsement on the driver's licence authorising carriage of hazardous goods, unless it also establishes that the substance actually being carried was one of the goods listed as hazardous under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

Rule 9(3) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 requires the licensing authority to endorse a driving licence to the effect that the holder is authorised to drive a goods carriage carrying goods of a dangerous or hazardous nature to human life. Table III appended to the Rules lists the goods treated as hazardous.

Justice Prashant Kumar held,

“Merely because the tanker was carrying spirit would not, by itself, lead to the conclusion that it was transporting hazardous goods within the meaning of the Rules.”

On 27.03.2015, Mahendra Kumar was returning home on his motorcycle with a pillion rider when a tanker, driven rashly and negligently, collided with them near Kamta Market in District Sultanpur. He died on the spot and the pillion rider was grievously injured. He was 28 years of age and was working as a Class IV employee at an intermediate college, earning Rs.17,000/- a month.

On the claim petition filed by his heirs, the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sultanpur held that the accident had occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of the tanker, and that there was no contributory negligence, and that the tanker was validly registered and insured. It held that its driver held a valid driving licence. By award dated 28.03.2019, it granted Rs.19,04,000/- with interest at 7% per annum.

The National Insurance Company appealed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It argued that the driver's licence, though valid for heavy goods vehicles, carried no endorsement permitting the carriage of dangerous or hazardous goods, as a reply dated 28.08.2018 from the Regional Transport Officer to a query under the Right to Information Act confirmed. Since the tanker was carrying spirit, which is ethanol, and ethanol figures in Table III at serial numbers 851 to 853, the want of the endorsement was a breach of the policy conditions absolving the insurer of liability.

The claimants supported the award, contending that spirit by itself does not fall within the category of hazardous goods, that only certain blended spirits are covered by Table III, and that the plea was an afterthought to escape payment of compensation. Neither the owner nor the driver of the tanker appeared despite service being complete.

The Court held that the information furnished by the Regional Transport Officer showed no more than that the driver had no separate endorsement for carrying hazardous goods, and that the same communication certified that he held a valid licence to drive a heavy goods vehicle, which was current on the date of the accident.

It further held that the carriage of spirit did not by itself show that the tanker was transporting hazardous goods within the meaning of the Rules. It held that the transport documents indicated only that it was carrying spirit, and there was no material on record to show that the substance fell within any of the categories enumerated in Table III.

“Such submission cannot be accepted in the absence of any evidence demonstrating that the particular substance being transported belonged to one of the specified categories of ethanol mentioned in Serial Nos. 851 to 853 of Table III. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be assumed that the offending vehicle was carrying hazardous goods so as to require a special endorsement on the driver's licence.”

Finding no illegality in the findings recorded by the Tribunal and holding that the insurer had failed to establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Court dismissed the appeal. It directed that the statutory amount, if any, deposited by the appellant be remitted to the Tribunal for adjustment in accordance with law.

Counsel for Appellant :- Tarun Kumar Misra

Counsel for Respondent :- Suresh Chandra Srivastava